Replies

Actually, the only thing that may be typical is your response. First of all, butting into my discussion w/ Jim, & second mischaraterizing my response, something you do w/ LDS doctrine frequently.

I had no knowledge of the anti-FR spamer or his site until this thread, as was the case w/ many here, thus the genesis, or instigation (if you want to call it that) of the issue from our part. I, as well as others, have noted our dismay for the conduct this guy, thus putting the “collar” on him, not Jim. Jim made some assertions that inferred a wrong scenario. His assertions were not totally clear, thus I was seeking clarification.

Not sure what your problem is here other that to insert yourself into a discussion you have no party to (unless you claim to speak for Jim). You speak of spam, but yet that's exactly what I would classify your post as. Most of your post had nothing to do w/ the matter at hand other than to spam your dislike for Joseph Smith, etc.

I admire this board & the things Jim has done for the board & all of us. Jim & I don't always agree, but I respect his opinions & the opportunity to voice my opinions on various matters here. I'm indebted to the board. Great work has been done here throughout the years & I appreciate that. The perception was that there was a concerted effort on the part of the LDS contingent to bring down the FR. That assertion was clearly erroneous. I was simply asking for further clarification from Jim on the matter.

If you claim to be Jim's spokesperson, do so. Otherwise, quit spamming.

Actually, the only thing that may be typical is your response. First of all, butting into my discussion w/ Jim...,Not sure what your problem is here other that to insert yourself into a discussion you have no party to (unless you claim to speak for Jim).

Have you ever heard of FREEPMAIL? If you were having a pure 1-on-1 discussion, then use that venue.

Obviously, you didn't. Therefore, only one pair of eyes was not your intention.

I've been around large LDS families enough to know that often when one person speaks to another, a third, 4th, 5th, etc. person may interject. But if you don't look at FR as a "family" -- often a "divided family" -- I can understand where you're coming from.

(Oh, and when somebody does bring history as an example into a family discussion, do you usually try to shut them down by labeling their words, "spam?" I hardly doubt you would do that in person. So why is it so much easier when the person isn't face-to-face?)